Re: The OWL file

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 15:57, Cristiano Longo <
cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> wrote:

>
> On 15/12/23 16:31, Aaron Gray wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 09:38, Cristiano Longo <
> cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I'm just an old Semantic Web developer (do you remember
>> the Semantic Web) and my primary source of specifications are RDFS and
>> OWL vocabularies, regardless of the serialization used to provide them.
>
> Activity streams and activity pub aren't strictly linked data matters as
>> they don't cope with general linked data formats and applications, they
>> are just applications of linked data tecnologies.
>>
>
It would be really nice to get this formalized properly and all links
fulfilled, with Accept Type support.

JSON-LD and OWL based applications and libraries should be supported
properly and should not have to use URI based lookup tables in place of web
lookup and caching.

>
> Even though there is a @Context header,
>
> Then there's this :-

     https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#extensibility


> As for specifications, JSON-LD 1.1 (is) a JSON-based format to serialize
> Linked Data. These linked data may be OWL or not. And, JSON-LD documents
> may contain a @context. If I understood your question.
>
> or header array block ?
>
> I cant' understand this.
>

Sorry I was just referring to a JSON array in @Context


https://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/draft-extensions-policy.html#example-2

Another longer OWL AS2 definition :-


https://github.com/ontola/ontologies/blob/master/ontologies/as/ontology.ttl

Regards,

Aaron

Aaron
>
>
>>
>> apologize for my English,
>>
>> CL
>>
>> On 08/12/23 22:23, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
>> > On 2023-12-08 20:53, nightpool wrote:
>> >> The OWL file is a nice open source project to have for those who prefer
>> >> machine readable ontologies but it's absolutely not a "work item" of
>> our
>> >> group and has never been one.
>> >
>> > Would this from https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/socialcg/ suffice:
>> >
>> > >It is also a place to incubate new proposals which build on or
>> > complement the Social Web WG recommendations.
>> >
>> > If not, please refer me to charter/process/agreement... a decision
>> > policy of any sort that justifies what belongs to the SWCG and not,
>> > and how you're going at having any sense of group consensus.
>> >
>> > See also:
>> >
>> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/516#issuecomment-1847830548
>> >
>> >> The idea that it needs to be under the
>> >> purview of a W3 Group or no-one will contribute to it seems specious to
>> >> me—if people find it useful, they'll contribute to it, just like any
>> >> other
>> >> open source project.
>> >
>> > The argument is not that a W3C Group is the only place to contribute
>> > to it. In the same way no one argues that SWCG is the only place to
>> > work on "social web" stuff.
>> >
>> > The point is that the SWCG is the most suitable place to move the work
>> > forward, and it is certainly not something appearing out of thing air
>> > or out of scope.
>> >
>> > But if I'm mistaken, then I suggest we update the CG's description /
>> > goals, charter, decision policy, or whatever that make all this
>> > crystal clear instead of handwaving what belongs here and what not.
>> >
>> > Here is a lazy search for "owl" just in the w3c/activitystreams repo:
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aw3c%2Factivitystreams%20owl&type=code
>> >
>> > * 4 codes
>> > * 35 issues (including open and closed)
>> > * 8 PRs (including open and closed)
>> >
>> > If people came forward / invested their time, it is probably good
>> > enough signal that there is interest to be a "work item". Again, if
>> > you don't like that word, feel free to pick something else, but then
>> > I'm going to ask for something more concrete on what constitutes
>> > "work" in this CG and what not, or can qualify as something that
>> > people can work on re scope. What's being asked is not some random
>> > technology that touches on "social web" stuff to be taken up here but
>> > quite literally something that's already well-acknowledged by existing
>> > material.
>> >
>> > So, back to the core discussion. Leave the RDF/OWL file in
>> > w3c/activitystreams alone because it is closest to related material
>> > and it is the simplest path to discovery and getting contributions.
>> >
>> > -Sarven
>> > https://csarven.ca/#i
>> >
>>
>>
>
> --
> Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org
>
> Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher,
> Information Theorist, and Computer Scientist.
>
>